Welcome to the MedLibrary.org Wikipedia Supplement on Template talk:Unreferenced/Archive 3 -- Please Click to Return to Front Page

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

← Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4 →

Contents 1 Enhance the template's visibility 2 Category 3 auto date? 4 Seeking consensus on warning text 5 Adequate to Any 6 editprotected 7 Age of unreferenced 8 Icon 9 This template is a self-reference. 10 Edit 11 We need to change "any" to "sufficient" 12 Icon remove please 13 Poor visibility 14 Is it time to add an icon? 14.1 General concerns with adding any icon to the template 14.2 Ok with adding an Icon and thoughts about a specific icon 14.3 Family of Templates 14.4 From Ambox talk page 15 Color 16 Couple of improvements 17 Again and again 18 date upon template? 19 Off center 20 Empty margin until icon 21 Documentation clarification: unreferencedsection 22 "Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed." 23 Placement 24 Section parameter 25 Icon in the template 26 Section parameter: specific proposal 27 Update doc with {subst:DATE} 28 Protection 29 Sources vs. Referenced vs. Citation 30 Inline references template? 31 Reprotected

Enhance the template's visibility

Every day it seems, brand new pages get created without any sources. I've been watching them the last 24 hours and the best thing I can think of to do is add this template, but the problem is it just goes in the pile, and not get much done.

Consider if we enhanced it by putting the third line ("Any material not supported by sources may be challenged and removed at any time.") in BOLD RED. It should be sterner in encouraging people to rush to find sources for things they've just added, in fear of it being deleted. Would the advantage of sources/reliability enhancement be worth the possible aesthetic nuisance? Anakin101 19:47, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

There's no need to make the template shout. The better solution is to either add sources yourself or contact the users individually and discuss with them the importance of sourcing. Canned templates are not a universal solution to the problem. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:41, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Category

Adding every article in this template to utterly useless categories is entirely annoying, and makes the category field for the articles ridiculous. In general, I think categories that relate to the quality of the article, rather than to its subject matter, ought to go in talk space. Is anybody with me? john k 17:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Response at Category talk:Articles lacking sources Jeepday (talk) 23:25, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

auto date?

{{editprotected}} Is it possible to have the date (well, month, year anyway) automatically be generated instead of having to enter it in manually all the time? I know some of the user talk page vandalism templates do it... ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 09:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Which vandalism templates are you thinking of? User templates are usually substituted, which mkes it possible to substitute the current date. This template is not supposed to be substituted, which makes it much more difficult to automatically enter a date that doesn't change once the template is placed. But SmackBot watches and adds dates to maintenance templates such as this, so you don't have to do it yourself. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Seeking consensus on warning text

There are a couple of discussions above suggesting that the template doesn't need to include lots of warning about what might happen to unreferenced material. I think I agree and propose the following amended template:

Any problems with this proposal? Do we want to implement it? GDallimore (Talk) 13:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Making the same argument that I made above - I object to removing the statement, I offer Template talk:Unreferenced#Jimbo on Unreferenced as exhibit one. Additionally if an editor was going to simply remove the the text as unreferenced they would remove it, not place a {{fact}} or {{unreferenced}}. Please also review WP:V#Burden_of_evidence. I beleive that the statement "Any material not supported by sources may be challenged and removed at any time" (besides being true) will help motivate an editor vested in the article to supply references. I just did a major rewrite on Road, I began by attempting to reference what other editors had written. Other then some random sentences almost everything had to removed and reworked Diff, The truth is that even if the information is true, it is often original research or from a specific book or web page and impossible to track down the original reference so it all gets deleted and reworked. Jeepday (talk) 01:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand. Removing the text from the template does not change the policy that unreferenced material can be removed it simply (correctly in my view) stops the template from being a summary of policy/guideline when, actually, the policy/guideline is more complex than can be explained in a single sentence and is, in any event, linked to from the template. Reomving the text has the added advantage of keeping the template short and to the point - highlighting the problems with the article without stomping all over the article.

One other thing to bear in mind: who benefits from this language? Nobody, in my view. Experienced editors will know how to deal with unreferenced material so don't need to be told. New editors should be guided towards the guidelines as the template alreadu does and not just given a short pithy statement of policy. Readers don't care that material may be removed, but it is useful for it to be highlighted that the article they are reading may not be reliable. With this last in mind - that readers are more important than editors - how about the following:

I've linked to WP:VERIFY from the word "reliable" and to WP:RS from the words "reliable sources". How's that? Thanks for listening. GDallimore (Talk) 09:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Although they shouldn't, many lay-readers will read "may not be reliable" as meaning "probably isn't reliable", which is incorrect. Also the warning about removal is probably still helpful (it tells people what may happen to unreferenced material if left) but tends to imply the remedy is removal, whereas surely its better to suggest a would-be remover or author tries verification first. Combining these, I'd suggest something more like one of these:

This article does not cite adequate references or sources
Readers may need to assess for themselves whether it is reliable.
Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. (help, get involved!)

Or:

This article does not cite adequate references or sources
Readers may need to assess for themselves whether it is reliable.
Unreferenced material may be challenged and removed if it cannot be verified.
Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. (help, get involved!)

The aim is not to present a POV implication that "the material is probably unreliable" (which some will read into it if not careful). Rather it is to assert that judgement and caution is needed because of the risk of unreferenced material. Alternative wordings are ".. and therefore reader judgement is needed to consider whether it is reliable", or similar, but the above wording was simpler. Thoughts on those two? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 00:15, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Or we could just leave well enough alone and use {{verify}} or {{OR}} as appropriate. Jeepday (talk) 02:56, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I think there is considerable advantage in keeping the templates as short and simple as possible, especially one used so frequently as this unfortunately must be used. Explanations go into the linked words; people know to click on links. It would be nice to keep it at two lines-- and a good example for other templates. DGG 04:01, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Short templates are an advantage, definitely. I most cases, I'd have thought two bold lines and a minor line should be fine, and adequate, to convey what needs saying. But it does need to be accurate and the wording well thought out.

I've modified two obvious points in the current wording; they don't add much wordage, but do make it more accurate:

1. "Any sources" -> "adequate sources"
2. "may be removed" -> "may be removed if it cannot be verified"

The former is an accuracy issue, the latter is to remind people that ideally one (i.e., the editor or the original author) checks for verification first, then removes if it can't be verified. Deletion is not a first resort.

Hopefully these two points at least are not controversial. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 03:06, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

isnt "Readers may need to assess for themselves whether it is reliable." a little condescending --when we say it isn't all verified, anyone who knows the meaning of verify will know that it may not all be true, and that readers must beware. Let's save that line. DGG 03:45, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

User FT2 - Unfortunately both are controversial. Adequetely has a long history of attempted insertions and deletions please see Template_talk:Unreferenced#.22Adequately.22_in_the_text. Any is the prefered usage for a number of reasons that are out lined here. Template_talk:Unreferenced#Template_usage_no_references_and_undereferenced and removal of "May be removed" is the topic of this debate (and previous debates Template_talk:Unreferenced#.22Material_that_has_no_source_may_be_removed.22 please revert your changes here and at Template:Unreferencedsection until there is a consensus. 03:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

There are other templates for articles which cite sources but need better ones. I like having one that says "any". NickelShoe (Talk) 03:59, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

"Adequate" to "any" fixed -- see below. I've wikilinked "may be challenged and removed" to WP:BRD, a minor edit, which describes how to do so without being excessively confrontational or aggressive. No textual change to the actual template involved. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 10:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

• GDallimore and DGG I am not seeing consensus for removal of the removal warning. We did a get minor rewording Diff 5 June 2007 to 26 June 2007 of the warning out of the request. Are you two acceptable to closing this request for the removal (for now)? Jeepday (talk) 13:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

You misunderstand. This is not a requst for a change but an invitation to discuss and therefore there is no question of it being open or closed. I have nothing more to add but that doesn't stop other people from coming and adding their opinions and suggestions which may alter the state of consensus.

Personally, I'm quite happy with the current version. It does some things that I like, such as linking to info on reliable sources and verification. The link to BRD was also a good plan, although I suggest linking to the full title of the BRD page so that an inexperienced editor can see and understand where the link goes with just a mouseover The language used to link to it isn't as oppressive as the previous version, either, which is a good thing and my main reason for suggesting removing it entirely. GDallimore (Talk) 13:23, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, the link to WP:BRD in the template should go directly to Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle not to the redirect for clarity. I am requesting an editprotect change to the template. Jeepday (talk) 13:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Relinked to Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle; also replicated this link in Template:Unreferencedsection. Edit request removed as dealt with.

The only remaining question I can see is whether people want to mention the caution about undue reliance: (eg, "Readers may need to assess for themselves whether it is reliable"). FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 17:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for making the changes. I don't think the "address for themselves" comment is required, it is already implied by the {{unreferenced}} tag and an editors feel a need to communicate that message on an article the {{OR}} and {{verify}} can be used in combination as required. Jeepday (talk) 23:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm for simplicity & agree we can do without it.DGG 02:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

...And then User:Centrx came by and made an edit Diff 7 intermediate revisions not shown that pretty much but it back like it was but with a shorter warning "Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed" several days later no one has commented on Centrx's changes. Jeepday (talk) 14:42, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

3 lines is better than 4. Good enough DGG 01:46, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

A wish: please, add a link to the talk page in the template! Said: Rursus ☺ ★ 10:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Adequate to Any

Please change the word "adequate" in the template back to "any", to reflect long term consensus about what this template is for as opposed to templates such as {{moresources}}. GDallimore (Talk) 09:26, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Fixed, and "editprotected" request accordingly removed -- thanks for the note, didn't realise there had been a discussion on that one. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 09:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing it. {{refimprove}} can be used where the references are not adequate for the article or section. FYI {{moresources}} redirects to {{refimprove}} Jeepday (talk) 12:55, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I think italicizing or otherwise emphasizing the "any" would probably discourage users from using this template inappropriately. — The Storm Surfer 03:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Well it just takes 1 out of 222 needed references getting added, and poof, all the sudden the "any" is invalid, and shakes the credibility of the label providing police. Therefore soften it to "any or almost any" or however you would better word it. Otherwise you need to scan every day to be sure you aren't still saying "any". 1/222 is of course not enough to switch a currently existing lighter worded version. Jidanni 22:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The point of this template is to mark articles with zero references. Articles with some references can have other templates put on them. Regardless of what template is used, if there aren't enough sources there aren't enough sources. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

editprotected

Request for edit: this template annoys me the most of all cleanup requests, because editors are using it undiscriminately, without explaining themselves. So: the template needs a link to the talk page where editors explain what's missing, or the template shall clearly tell the reader to replace it with a more specific template ASAP, so we cleaners can understand what it refers to. (I cannot see why Alice in Wonderland lacks citations, it has three sources, and they are linked in the articles). This template is used to litter Wikipedia. It should be used with care. If it wasn't protected, it would be added to my list Category:Templates needing talk links and other improvements. Said: Rursus ☺ ★ 10:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

• I removed the {{editprotected}} because the request does not consider the considerable discussion on this topic. Which I will discus shortly. Jeepday (talk) 13:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not sure what has to be explained about "This article does not cite any references or sources." If the article has any sources at all, this template should be removed and (if necessary) replaced with "refimprove", "primarysources", or line-by-line citation requests. NickelShoe (Talk) 13:07, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

• • And unless I'm missing something, this template isn't on Alice's Adventures in Wonderland. NickelShoe (Talk) 13:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Correct, this template is not on Alice's Adventures in Wonderland it has {{refimprove}}Jeepday (talk) 13:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

• Rursus I hear your frustration but you have not researched the issue, discussed it, or looked for consensus before embarking on a crusade to modify the work of multiple editors. From a long history Template_talk:Unreferenced#Template usage no references and undereferenced and Template_talk:Unreferenced#"Adequately" in the text of discussion back and forth, and changes in usage of this template for Does not cite ANY reference and is poorly or not adequately referenced. lead to the diversion of into two templates {{unreferenced}} for articles without ANY references and {{refimprove}} for articles that are poorly sourced. Multiple projects are underway to address these article including Wikipedia:Unreferenced articles which sprung from this talk page (Template_talk:Unreferenced/Archive_2#Project_Proposal). The article Alice's Adventures in Wonderland that you using as your example is tagged with {{refimprove}} because it has some references (2 listed, plus 5 inline citation notes, and numerous external links). Compare the references and citations of any Wikipedia:Featured articles to Alice's Adventures in Wonderland and you can see that there is a long way for this article to go, the topic is clearly a candidate for Wikipedia:Featured articles but needs multiple improvements. Back to your comment about this template {{unreferenced}} please explain how it could be any clearler by adding a note to the talk page. If {{unreferenced}} is on an article with 'No References what else is there to say? If it is on an article with references then it should be replaced as noted on Template:Unreferenced or removed. No References at all equals {{unreferenced}} there is nothing else to say in the comments. Jeepday (talk) 13:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

This paragraph ignores the actual use of the template. The template is used all over the place and it's wishful thinking to hope that people will (a) only apply it to articles with no references, and (b) will remove it once there is a single solitary reference added. The word "any" needs to be changed to reflect the way this template is actually being used (and will continue to be used forever). Tempshill 04:59, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, there's a reason for that which will gradually heal itself. The change to have a clear dividing line between templates for "no references" and templates for "insufficient references" was relatively recent, so there is a large backlog in changing one to the other where appropriate. Change takes time, don't undo the changes because they don't immediately work. GDallimore (Talk) 07:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

First of all: pardon for using {{editprotected}} without seeking consensus. I didn't know that was the rule (need not be formal to be respected). I'm sorry for speaking harshly. Alice's was just one example, which maybe is fixed now, but at least Stargate SG-1 and Plain text files have irritated me the same way, and maybe they're fixed too, by now, but consider the problem: I'm a fixupper, that try to edit and restructure the articles to be readable, then flowing, then delectable. Stargate has just a few possible sources: the films and movies, and the authors. Plain text files is a basic knowledge for which there is no written definition – there simply aren't sources that are good enough to be used according to primary source, first since the word is too new to be researched by linguists, secondly since the sources must be online dictionaries that are by nature tertiary sources – the word was used by technicians, then written into a tech-book, then snapped into the dictionary. If templates are to be dropped on a page, there must be some kind of adaption to the topic in question. That motivates

Category:Templates needing talk links and other improvements and that motivates my broad "raid" against templates. Now, after getting this attention, I'll calm down a bit and join one or many of these projects. Thanks for your attention! Said: Rursus ☺ ★ 17:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Age of unreferenced

The discusion is continued at Wikipedia talk:Requests for verification

A discussion is underway at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#Age of unreferenced that in part suggests the use of the Wikitionary tag {{rfv}} to be used on new unreferenced articles (newer then January 1, 2007) which reads

This page has been listed on the requests for verification list. (Add entry to list.) It has been suggested that this entry might not meet Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion. If evidence is not provided within a month, the disputed information will be removed.

The rationale being at some point Wikipedia needs to start enforcing WP:V and WP:OR currently the rebuttal's center on encouraging use of references without actually removing unreferenced material. Jeepday (talk) 03:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The discusion is continued at Wikipedia talk:Requests for verification

Icon

I have removed the icon Bdesham added. It served no purpose and made the template quite large. Picaroon (t) 22:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Garion96 (talk) 22:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I've reinstated the image, but with formatting so that the template is exactly the same size as before. Sorry for screwing it up before! :-/ --bdesham ★ 06:37, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Even so it still draws unnecessary attention, even more so that its getting already. Do we really want to draw attention to the fact that most of this encyclopedia is unreferenced? T Rex | talk 11:09, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I removed it. It really is not necessary. See also this talk page for many times an image has been proposed. Garion96 (talk) 11:18, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Given that nearly all of the other cleanup templates at Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup have icons, I just feel that we should add an icon to this template in the name of consistency. All of those templates are also drawing "unnecessary attention", but if cleanup templates were unobtrusive then their purpose would be defeated. Finally, usability studies have shown again and again that icons are important visual cues, and we want our editors to be able to identify one template from another as easily as possible, in the interest of having the problems fixed as quickly as possible. --bdesham ★ 16:38, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

As the use of icons has been extensively discussed at on this template and has not had discussion or consensuses at most (if not all) of the other reference related clean up tags, in the name of consistency maybe they should all be removed. If you want users to be able to tell one template from another then the icons would need to be different, ideally you would also seek consensuses in the community. Here we have clear consensuses that reference related templates do not need icons as the text of the template must be read to define the intent. As bdesham as pointed out all other templates in Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup have icons so we have consistency in that only reference related templates do not. Summary we have consistency and consensus that reference related templates do not have icons. Jeepday (talk) 17:28, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I have started a discussion about this at Wikipedia talk:Template messages/Cleanup#Use of icons. Please post there and not here. --bdesham ★ 18:38, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

This template is a self-reference.

In the doc page it is written

This template is a self-reference.

what does this mean? -- AnyFile 09:30, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

A while back, someone confused about the "avoid self-references" guideline misguidedly added that statement to numerous templates. We really should have a bot remove it. —David Levy 16:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

It means that it is text on Wikipedia that talks about Wikipedia. If we ever print a copy of Wikipedia, such templates should be silently removed. --Alvestrand 22:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Edit

{{editprotected}} Please add {{subst:tfd}} to the template. Genokutos 20:19, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Done. — Malcolm (talk) 22:30, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

You may remove it again; it was speedily closed as Keep. — Edokter • Talk • 00:33, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

We need to change "any" to "sufficient"

This article does not cite any references or sources.

We need to change this template's use of "any references" to "sufficient references". The template is automatically made a lie once a single source is added. It is wishful thinking that the template will only be used on articles that have no references. The use of the term "sufficient" will fix the problem. It begs the question, "What is 'sufficient'?", but this is a lesser problem than the problem of factual accuracy that the current template has. Tempshill 04:57, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Also note #Adequate to Any Jidanni 04:56, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

There are other templates for insufficient sources. When a source is added, this one can be swapped for one of those. GDallimore (Talk) 07:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

My point is that this is not happening. Here's an idea - how about if someone were to write a bot to scan all the articles with this template, and if a single single-bracket link exists, then we convert the Unreferenced template to one of the others? If this can't be done then IMO we need to modify this template. Tempshill 17:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Please do write that bot. It won't cover every instance, because the article could have sources listed but no external links, but I would be interested in just a count of the articles that are marked unreferenced but have an external link. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I lack the skill to write that bot. I'll place a plea on Village Pump's Technical post. That would resolve my (at least) problem with this template. Tempshill 21:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) A request for a bot to replace {{unref}} as described above has been made at Wikipedia:Bot_requests#Template:Unreferenced_bot_request. I encourage watchers of this template to take a look and comment as you feel appropriate.

Icon remove please

{{editprotected}} Please remove the icon that was accidentally added durring the ambox update by adding | image = blank following the entry "| type = content" in the template. There is long standing argument to not include an icon on this template. Jeepday (talk) 04:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

it's gone :) Jeepday (talk) 04:26, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Poor visibility

With neither an enclosing box nor an icon, this template has extremely poor visibility in articles. It just looks like inline text. Where is the consensus to make these changes? Ham Pastrami 12:08, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I want to second that. It looks very messy and it looks like the template is part of the article text. Please add a subtle background, box or whatever. --Jeroenvrp 12:22, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

You may need to clear you cache to see the change correctly for the next couple of hours. Stron consensus for the change was reached at Wikipedia talk:Template standardisation Jeepday (talk) 13:24, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Is it time to add an icon?

Warning this is a controversial topic, do not make changes to the template before consensus is clear

The new template standard at Wikipedia talk:Template standardisation will be bringing increased attention to this and other templates for the next few days. The new template format also address a couple of long standing arguments against having a icon on this template. I would like to suggest that is now time to seriously consider adding an image to this template and suggest this one in particular. There are a couple of similar icons at Commons:Category:Books icons I think that image of magnifying glass and a book suggest that someone needs to take a closer look at the content of the article and works well with the {{unreferenced}} family of templates including {{refimprove}}. Jeepday (talk) 13:44, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

General concerns with adding any icon to the template

Please no image! Speaking in graphic icons is for the birds. The current layout is really good. — [ aldebaer⁠] 23:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok with adding an Icon and thoughts about a specific icon

Much too large. Whatever the icon is, it should not force the box to a larger size than at present. Of course this is easy to scale. DGG (talk) 20:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I put up the standard options on Template:Unreferenced/Icon. I will try to scale the icon above and add it as well. 21:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

The text is 3 lines anyway, and the 50 px version doesnt force it beyond that, but I also tried a smaller size-- 40 pixels. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)

I did the Nuvola apps kpdf.png at 40 px also I think if we had to use a 40px I would prefer the "Nuvola apps kpdf.png" but if we can go 50 or even 65 I like the "Nuvola kdict glass". Not that it matters much because so far it is only you and me talking about adding an icon which is a long way from consensus when you look at the history. Jeepday (talk) 21:14, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Family of Templates

A note of this suggestion was posted on templates considered to be in the {{unreferenced}} family of templates.

• {{Unreferencedsection}}
• {{Refimprove}}
• {{Refimprovesect}}
• {{Primarysources}}

From Ambox talk page

We were discussing a possible icon for this over at Wikipedia talk:Article message boxes, until Jeepday kindly informed us that we might be discussing in the wrong place. That discussion produced a few different icon possibilities, so I wanted to float them by here to see what people think. Here's what we came up with so far:

This article needs additional references or sources for verification. Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. (help, get involved!) Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed.

This article needs additional references or sources for verification. Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. (help, get involved!) Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed.

This article needs additional references or sources for verification. Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. (help, get involved!) Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed.

This article needs additional references or sources for verification. Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. (help, get involved!) Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed.

This article needs additional references or sources for verification. Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. (help, get involved!) Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed.

I really like the book design (good work Equazcion and AzaToth!) and I hope it can be used. The magnifying glass covers up to much of the book on the bottom two. The third one's too busy, but maybe it can be tweaked (like flipping the magnifying glass). The first one conveys the message the best, but again I really like the book. - Rocket000 07:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I like the second and third designs best, particularly the third one. I don't think it's too busy, but maybe the glass could be scaled down a bit to appeal to more people. --Gimlei ^{(talk to me)} 08:34, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Image:Question book-2.svg is my favorite for this purpose. The magnifying glass addition seems redundant (because the search and question refer to the same issue; we aren't searching for a question). —David Levy 08:45, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The second is my favorite, but that could be because it's the closest to my original design :) But even so, I think it's the sleekest and most concise. I tried combining the magnifying glass in there somehow but its just seems cramped, redundant, overkill... Thanks for the compliment by the way, Rocket000.

Equazcion • argue/contribs • 08:55, 09/18/2007

Have modified my alternative a bit, as seen here: _→AzaToth 12:58, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

This article needs additional references or sources for verification. Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. (help, get involved!) Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed.

Thank you for bring the discussion here. Please note that this template has a long history of reaching consensus to add an icon only to find after adding it that there was a much greater opposition to the icon then anticipated. Many of the users who tend to object to the use of an Icon do not watch the talk page, but do apply these templates regularly, when they notice a change to template (icon or text) they come here to address the issue. The discusion at Wikipedia_talk:Article_message_boxes#Needs-refs_graphic started with the assumption that the lack of a icon indicated there was a need for an icon, this is not true. There is no icon because the community here has repeatedly rejected the use of icons on these templates. There are really two questions here.

• 1. Do the unreferenced family of templates need an icon? The answer to that is no and is evidenced by the repeated communty reject of any icon.
• 2. Could an icon be selected for this family of templates that would not result in rejection by the community? That is the question, we are here to find out.

Having said that and seeing that the current proposal icons are similar to the related icons all ready in discussion on this talk page and shown at Template:Unreferenced/Icon. I personally prefer the one below as it offers a slight contrast to the side bar, but I can appreciate using coloring that is more in keeping with the side bar color.

• Image:Nuvola apps kpdf.png

This article does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. (help, get involved!) Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed.

Signed Jeepday (talk) 13:34, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

A thing that is positive for using an icon, is that it can be easier to directly see that it's a "unreferenced" tagging, but true, the icon must have something in common with the purpose of the template. _→AzaToth 14:14, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

That one's good but I think it stands out a bit too much. I still like best, plus it's more subtle so it may be more acceptable to those who've been against an icon thus far.

Equazcion • argue/contribs • 15:41, 09/18/2007

Okay on second thought I think I like best. I think it offers the quickest recognition.

Equazcion • argue/contribs • 17:16, 09/18/2007

Here's my quickie attempt to recolor the icon (which someone more skilled than I could apply to the SVG version):

This article needs additional references or sources for verification. Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. (help, get involved!) Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed.

And here it is horizontally flipped:

This article needs additional references or sources for verification. Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. (help, get involved!) Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed.

—David Levy 18:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there is an SVG version yet (I was looking for one). This looks pretty good, and I like the non-flipped one better.

Equazcion • argue/contribs • 18:36, 09/18/2007

The SVG version is Image:Postscript-viewer.svg. —David Levy 00:01, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

There's a chance I didn't look hard enough. I'm having trouble downloading that file though, I'm getting a strange error from the server.

Equazcion • argue/contribs • 00:19, 09/19/2007

Of all the ones that have been suggested; I like this one best.

This article needs additional references or sources for verification. Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. (help, get involved!) Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed.

~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 01:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC) (edit to say that I'm only talking about the icon and the look of the template of course.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ONUnicorn (talk • contribs) 01:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Same here.

Equazcion • argue/contribs • 03:01, 09/19/2007

I would also be ok with Image:Nuvola apps kpdf recolored.png at 50px (p.s. it should be moved to commons if the decision to use template is made) Jeepday (talk) 03:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

That's where I uploaded it.  :-) —David Levy 03:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm honored that Anetode has chosen to implement one of the icons I made, but the one s/he chose is hardly the product of a consensus. Some admin want to revert that?

Equazcion • argue/contribs • 04:14, 09/19/2007

It looks like we are moving towards consensus of a specific icon to use on the unreferenced family of templates (if one is used). I would caution editors to read #icon above and the other talks about icons here and in the archive #Image and Box Formatting before making a decision about consensus for actually placing the icon on templates. Not counting archived comments I make the count on this talk page of using any icons here to using no icons ever, about even. Many of the past supporters of icons usage on this talk page were supporting specific icons that they had found or made themselves so there are WP:COI concerns there. The recent redesign of the templates has brought this into public view so consensus may or may not have changed. If an attempt to add an icon and maintain (or find) consensus is unsuccessful at this time consensus will probably never be reached to add an icon. Use your best judgment, I am just the housekeeper here. Jeepday (talk) 04:20, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I love the one by AzaToth posted on 12:58, 18 September 2007 (UTC). Renata 03:42, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I like Aza's modified alternative one too, with the Q-mark and text. JoeSmack ^Talk 12:38, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Sooooo, whats the score here? Where are we at with this? JoeSmack ^Talk 00:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I was wondering that myself. Can we get some icon in there already? Every other maintenance tag has an icon, it aids in quick recognition of the tag. This is the only tag I actually have to read in order to see what it's suggesting (please don't make me read! :)

Equazcion • argue/improves • 15:40, 09/24/2007

Color

This template looks really silly with the orange bar. Very lack of aesthetics. Galadree-el 17:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Recent drive for template infobox standardization. I found the talk page for it earlier today, but have lost it again. --Alvestrand 20:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Article templates Jeepday (talk) 21:03, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly disagree, the new layout is great and much more professional-looking. — [ aldebaer⁠] 23:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Without the colour or border, the infobox looks like a bunch of random text. -- Reaper X 03:19, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Couple of improvements

I have

1. Ditched the "Tagged since the year dot" thing. There's a dated category at the bottom of every such article, and that's enough. There is no value to the reader in knowing since when and what few editors have the slightest utility for the information are already going to have to use the category anyway. There is no use for the clutter at the top of articles therefore.
2. Removed the links to
   1. Help:Help since that's available elsewhere particularly as soon as they click the far more important "edit me" link, and doesn't need adding to every page yet again.
   2. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Fact and Reference Check. It looks to be essentially comprised of tumbleweed to me, with vandalism still sitting on talk pages and no interest in a month or more. The top of reader-based articles isn't the place for futile pleas for membership - we have more appropriate venues for that.

Given the growing over-burdening of the tops of articles, minimalism is essential. Editors who work on 'unreferenced articles' and the like as their Wikipedia 'hobby' are already knowledgeable enough that they don't need all the extra duplicate links. Those that are not, will derive little use from them when all they want to do is fix a comma or something. Splash - tk 16:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Good move, could be applied to many other tags. Rich Farmbrough, 17:44 18 September 2007 (GMT).

I guess you could call me an 'unreferenced articles' hobby editor. I am ok with the removal of the extra links, they come and go, gone today back tomorrow... I am even ok with losing the This article has been tagged since but I do find having the date on the template useful. I know it is on the category and for the most part when working Wikipedia:Unreferenced articles I get to the article because it is in the category of the oldest articles wearing {{unref}}. I would really prefer for a number of reasons to have the date remain on the template. In my "hobby" I look at a lot of article every day must are ugly, and I fix the things that need to be fixed the most (in my skill set) that have been tagged the longest. Please do not make my "hobby" any more difficult put the date back on the template. Anyone that can't figure out that the date on the template is the tagged since date, is not going to be helped by the This article has been tagged since. Jeepday (talk) 02:59, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I like the date too--I don't do this as much as Jeepday, but I too will try to deal with the oldest preferentially. DGG (talk) 04:36, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The date is still on the article, since it carries the category at the bottom. To have it at the top is just putting administrative information unnecessarily in the headline of the readers' view of the article. It's fine to warn them "caveat lector, this is unreferenced", but with the proliferation of 'high-impact' graphic design and other tags at the tops of such articles (often each containing the same date), administrative burdens need to be removed. Splash - tk 09:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Our point is that date is no longer on the template, and you have a fine point of view about administrative burdens, but it is your point of view and the removal did not find consensus. In keeping with Splash's WP:BOLD style I requesting the reversion of the removal of the following code which has does not have consensus for removal and had previously found consensus for addition.

{{editprotected}}

Please place this code <br />{{#if:{{{date|}}}|This article has been tagged since '''{{{date}}}'''.}} Directly before </small></span> at the end of the template. Jeepday (talk) 01:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, I don't think you have actually given any reasons to add it back, and this 'consensus' of which you speak is not a reverting force. There is nothing 'bold' about a reversion to a poor version of a template. The date is on the article as much as it ever was, and serves no use in the template. Splash - tk 09:03, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I have tried to explain that have the date on the template makes it easier to assess the article while improving it. It is particularly helpful on the very ugly articles that have multiple templates and or categories. For the template reader the date provides some information about the quality of the article and ongoing maintenance. An article that has been tagged for clean-up or references for over a year is more likely to have been abandoned and is in need of adoption where as an article that has tags with relatively current dates is receiving some current attention. You have four arguments to remove the date.

1. . There's a dated category at the bottom of every such article, and that's enough. I have disagreed and addressed that it is not enough for editors who are improving articles.
2. . There is no value to the reader in knowing since when... I have addressed this as well, old date = abandoned article
3. . few editors have the slightest utility for the information are already going to have to use the category anyway. I am on of the "few editors" which I identified in my first post on the topic when I pointed out that the date in the template is helpful to me. It may seem surprising to you but I don't always find {{unreferenced}} on articles via a dated category and even when I do it may have multiple {{unreferencedsection}} with different dates.
4. . There is no use for the clutter at the top of articles therefore, use has been discussed it is not clutter and serves a useful purpose to working editors and random readers alike.

• Now do I need to spend more of my limited volunteer time on Wikipedia discussing this or can we replace the date so I can go back to fixing articles? Jeepday (talk) 13:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

You seem very angry. I would suggest that you move on to looking quickly at the bottom of articles rather than the top. It makes no difference to you which you look at; if you think it does, then I really think that's rather over-sensitive. To take 1, 3 and 4: you just make the one point: that you personally find it useful; well ok, but the information you find useful is still in the article and as accessible as always. On the other hand, the mess at the top of the article is reduced. Net benefit to readers, who matter more than editors. Point 2 is material: the abandonment thing. But the reader already has a caveat lector, a shiny bar, a picture, some words and so on. That's enough, and once the date is removed from other templates, the improvement is substantial on a multiply-tagged article.

You need waste no time further time, since the information you require is still there, as it always has been. It is even still at the top of the article when you press 'edit'. The change from your point of view is irrelevant. The change is important from the point of view of presentation and compression of clutter, however. See if you can make the transition from top to bottom of article. It might be easier than you fear. Splash - tk 15:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I, too, prefer to have the date of tagging "smalled" within the template itself. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 13:51, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Any reason for that? It's in the category at the bottom in bigger text. Editorial convenience (which is minimal since all you have to do is scroll for half a second!) is trumped by improved presentation for readers. So far, the only surviving reason anyone has for adding the clutter back into thousands of articles is "I want it there". Splash - tk 16:48, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Splash - Am I angry? I can't imagine how I managed to survive my whole life without you tell me what makes a difference to me "It makes no difference to you which you look at" So I guess I must be angry if you say I am. I realize that it's not just me, you know for the whole universe it would seem. In counter to your argument that "There is no value to the reader", I provided a valid value for the reader to know when the article was tagged, but as you know better then I "But the reader already has a caveat lector, a shiny bar, a picture, some words and so on". So I apologize for questioning your superior judgment, you appear to have the "Net benefit to readers, who matter more than editors" as a primary concern. How could I have imagined that a "shiny bar" and a "picture" could have been less valuable to the reader then a date? And when you consider that this template does not have a picture because years of consensus by the community has indicated that the text was more important and the picture did not add value to the message, well that leaves the reader with a "shiny bar" and some text, and we would not want to give the reader any more information then Splash beleives is appropriate for them. Maybe to meet your goal "The change is important from the point of view of presentation and compression of clutter", we should just remove templates completely? The categories would still be listed at the bottom of the article.

Lets review

• Splash Item 1 for removal of date - There is no value to the reader or the editor to have the date on the template.
• Mixed support for and against date on template
• An editor (jeepday) posted {{editprotected}}, which was canceled by Splash Diff
• More responses that it provides value, only a single editor continuing to speak to keep date off of template
• Leaving the only argument to remove the date is Splash took it off, who counters with a request to replace the date with "the only surviving reason anyone has for adding the clutter back into thousands of articles is "I want it there". Splash - tk 16:48, 22 September 2007 (UTC)"

Splash it is unclear if you are going to continue to challenge the rights of other editors to make individual template changes that you do not personally agree with. Maybe this is a bigger policy decision that should be made some place more visible then this talk page. Splash if you really beleive it is in the best interest of Wikipedia globally not to include dates on templates please bring it up some place more visible and appropriate like Wikipedia:Village pump (policy).

Signed Jeepday (talk) 16:12, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I've tried re-reading your comments to work out concretely what the reason is. I think you are saying these things:

1. You find it useful at the top. But I haven't worked out why - what critical benefit do you have from it being at the top and bottom rather than just the bottom. Saving 1 mouse click occasionally is surely not all?
2. Multiple unreferenced sections with dates. Well, these per-section templates ought to be burned anyway. They just destroy articles. Why use a gazillion templates when one will do?
3. 'Abandonment' of an article. Not something that's material, really, once you've received the caveat lector. If interested, the information is still there on the page and in the history. Abandonment isn't information we routinely put on articles, referenced or otherwise; and some very quiet and unref'd articles are actually perfectly correct in their content and oughtn't to have so many shades of doubt cast on them.

So the important thing is that I haven't understood why you find it essential to have the date at the top of the article, and why you think the additional 'clutter' up there is so important it overrides all the presentational aspects. Maybe once I understand that, I will be clearer on things. Cheers, Splash - tk 13:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Bearing in mind that the categories might vanish to be replaced with another mechaism, the approach of {{trivia}} may be a good way forward - include just the date in parenthesis. (done) Rich Farmbrough, 12:52 25 September 2007 (GMT).

I am pleased to hear that the date information looks like being gotten rid of completely. However, for this template, having the (imo redundant) information expanding the height of the template by something approaching 33% is not a solution. I've therefore moved the 'small'ed text onto the first line of it. I hope to remove it completely in the near future. Splash - tk 19:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Did you look at the template before making the change? It would have looked like this:

This article does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed. (May 2007)

Not adding to the height at all, nor breaking the flow of words. Looking, in my opinion like a date for the tag, rather than for the headline. Rich Farmbrough, 14:04 29 September 2007 (GMT).

I think the date looks more professional at the end of the last line, or pushed all the way to the right of the top line. Also would someone replace the date on refimprove, it looks like Splash, accidently removed it diff when trying to move it. Jeepday (talk) 02:47, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Again and again

{{editprotect}} please undo this change Diff the change was not made with consensus during an active discussion and the editor User:anetode who made the change has declined User_talk:Jeepday#Re:_Template:Unreferenced to undo the action. Jeepday (talk) 04:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I've already reverted that edit. —David Levy 04:44, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks :) Jeepday (talk) 04:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

date upon template?

I came across an article tagged with {{unreferenced}} but not showing any date in the template. I checked the history for when the tag was added, and went into the article to add it but found that it was already there. As far as I can tell the syntax is done correctly ( {{unreferenced|date=May 2007}} ); but is there something wrong that I'm missing? — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 13:48, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

And ... had I paid more attention, I would have found this only two sections above. Live and learn. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 13:49, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Off center

The template was recently changed, and the changes not only made it shorter than the rest of the templates (so they no longer align left and right), but it is no longer centered. Can someone take a peek at that and perhaps fix it? Thanks! ^Ariel♥Gold 22:22, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

It should be fixed; try refreshing your cache. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:49, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Very odd, as I refresh my cache every hour, regularly. Not sure why it was showing up oddly for me earlier, but thanks Carl! ^Ariel♥Gold 01:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

It had been broken, so it makes sense that it would appear broken for you at some time... Also the job queue is about 2m entries ATM, may have an impact. Rich Farmbrough, 14:06 29 September 2007 (GMT).

Empty margin until icon

Until an icon is added, could you please add an empty margin the size of an icon? (The version posted above by "Rich Farmbrough, 14:04 29 September 2007 (GMT)." had a different wording but the empty margin was there, so that's possible.) This is because the current version makes the "This article does not..." part not aligned with other messages, and it looks very amateur with several boxes stacked, as on this permalink example. Thanks. — Komusou ^talk @ 19:52, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

It looks right when lined up with other templates that don't have icons like {{prod}} in this example (which being a prod will probably not be available for long). Jeepday (talk) 03:09, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Documentation clarification: unreferencedsection

Confusion between {{unreferenced|section}} and {{unreferencedsection}} seems not uncommon. How would people feel about adding this paragraph at the end of the documentation's Usage section?

{{Unreferenced|section}} is not equivalent to {{Unreferencedsection}}. The first is to draw attention to a section in an article that has no references. The second is to draw attention to a section that has no references in an article that has one or more references.

Or perhaps "may or may not have references" instead of "has one or more references"...the documentation on {{unreferencedsection}} isn't completely clear on that. The suggested italics are because it can otherwise be unclear what "that" refers to, but perhaps better phrasing would reliminate that ambiguity. -Agyle 04:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that sounds like a great improvement.--BirgitteSB 12:57, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

If a whole article has no references why would you need to draw further attention to a specific section in that article that also has no references? Jeepday (talk) 13:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not advocating that a person use the section modifier for that, I'm just trying to clarify the documentation. The template already includes the optional "section" modifier, and already lists it in the documentation, but I think the documentation is confusing as to when it should and shouldn't be used. Do you think the proposed addition is correct, ignoring the question of whether having a "section" modifier is a good idea? -Agyle 01:35, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

When you sit and think on it for a minute like Agyle did I can see the editors point and the confusion {{unreferenced|section}} and {{unreferencedsection}} usage is not clear in the directions. As an editor who has been fairly involved (over 100 edits here [1]) in discussions on this talk page, my interpretation of the correct usage based on consensus here would be that both {{unreferenced|section}} and {{unreferencedsection}} are equal and should only be used on sections with no references in the section. If the whole article is unreferenced then {{unreferenced}} would be used at the top. If a section is partially referenced then use {{refimprovesect}} in the section. Like I said this is my interpretation of the consensus, so obviously I would beleive it is correct usage as I describe it, but just because I beleive it does not make it true. I think there are two questions here.

1. What is the correct usage of {{unreferenced|section}} and {{unreferencedsection}}?
2. Are the usage instructions for these two clear?

• I think the answer to question 2 is that the usage instructions are not clear. But I don't think they can be fixed until the answer to question 1 is clear. What are other editors thoughts on Question 1 Jeepday (talk) 02:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Oooooooooh, this is confusing. :-) The documentation on {{unreferenced}} says you can say anything as an optional parameter; the fact that it uses "|section called 'Childhood'" is just an arbitrary example. {{unreferenced|section}} doesn't actually have any special status over any other words you use. The template box repeats whatever you say in place of "article," so if you add {{unreferenced|steaming pile of garbage}}, the box on the page says "This steaming pile of garbage does not cite any references or sources."

There is one indisputable functional difference between using {{unreferenced|section}} and {{unreferencedsection}}: the former adds an article to Category:Articles lacking sources, while the latter adds an article to Category:Articles needing additional references. And a practical difference is that, as noted in the documentation for {{unreferenced}}, you could put {{unreferenced|article's section named 'Childhood'}} anywhere (top, bottom, in the section, or on the Talk page), whereas {{unreferencedsection}} would only make sense in the section. Again, I'm not advocating or defending any of this; that's just how it is. -Agyle 04:19, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I made a lots of changes to the documentation text. I avoided suggesting when unreferenced or unreferencedsection should be used, as it's not yet clear if there is a consensus on that. I only noted the functional difference between the two: the placement of an article in different categories. I think everything in the documentation change is factual and uncontroversial, so I didn't put it all here as a proposal, but if there is any dispute over anything, I'd encourage removing the text in question or reverting the entire edit until the issue can be resolved. -Agyle 11:44, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

"Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed."

What's up with this? Any unsourced material can be challenged and removed, not just material that's unverifiable. This is misleading.P4k 17:29, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

It came from this edit. Possibly it was just a slip of the tongue. — Carl (CBM ·